The proposed amendment of the Constitution is not only unjust; it raises questions of the democratic principle of separation of powers among the arms of government. Government (Executive) is arbitrarily seeking to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court (Judiciary) using its parliamentary majority (Legislature).

Typical of Africa’s big-man “liberators”, Yoweri Museveni is unlikely to handover power to another leader. He has reached a point where he believes he alone is qualified to rule Uganda. Contrary to his self-glorification, Museveni is not in power because Ugandans love him. Rather, he has carefully manipulated national politics to enable him to rule for life.

President Museveni’s government wants to change the law to allow prospective investors in the mining industry to access private land that contains minerals without negotiating with the land-owners. His argument is that minerals in the soil belong to the government and that the people occupying the land have no say in the matter. The people must resist such tyranny.

Africa is not yet free, despite formal independence. Most of the continent’s nations are in the grip of criminal regimes whose leaders belong in jail for widespread human rights violations. But those leaders always stand with one another to defeat justice.

State brutality is integral to the electoral cycle in Yoweri Museveni’s Uganda. There are campaign beatings, ballot beatings and post-election beatings. Ugandans this week witnessed pre-swearing-in beatings. They can expect swearing-in beatings, after which there is every chance there will be post-swearing in beatings. Then, the election cycle over, the country shall revert to ordinary beatings.

Uganda is still restless following the election of February 18 that was controversially won by President Yoweri Museveni against the backdrop of massive irregularities. Museveni, in power for 30 years already, will be sworn in for another 5-year term on May 12. Beginning today, the opposition has announced popular protests. Uganda’s future remains uncertain.

It is troubling that an electoral body that is unanimously declared grossly incompetent for noncompliance of electoral laws by the highest court in the land can still be deemed by the same court to have conducted valid presidential and parliamentary elections. The findings and the conclusions are a contradiction in terms.